|
|
17 January 1994
Doc. 6994
1403-13/1/94-3-E
INFORMATION REPORT
on the situation of the media in the former Yugoslavia1
presented by the Committee on Culture and Education2
(Rapporteurs: Mr BERG,
Norway, European Democratic Group
and Mr SOELL,
Germany, Socialist Group)
_____
Contents
Information report
Appendices:
I. Record of the hearing on the situation of media in former
Yugoslavia (Strasbourg, 15 October 1993)
II. Written Question No. 354 by Mrs Fischer (30 September 1993), and
reply from the Committee of Ministers (29 October)
Introduction
1. The media operating on the territory of the former Yugoslavia share responsibility for the origin and development of the conflicts raging there, and will also have a central role in any resolution of those same conflicts. The chances of lasting peace in the region require the existence, among other things, of the free circulation of information and of independent media.
2. The situation of the media in the former Yugoslavia is increasingly alarming. The violation of the rights of journalists, infringements of the principle of independence of the media and the shortage of material have led to a situation that can be described as disastrous: the use of state television for propaganda is a fact in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia; the media using the Albanian language have been shut down in Kosovo; the press is less and less pluralist in Croatia; and the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina makes journalists risk their lives in an attempt to continue to circulate information.
3. With a view to giving parliamentarians an accurate picture of the role of the media in the escalation of the conflicts, of the present situation and working conditions for journalists, and of the different problems of each region, the Sub-Committee on Media (Commitee on Culture and Education) organised a hearing with journalists from most countries of the former Yugoslavia and representatives of non-governmental organisations (see Appendix I). This took place in Strasbourg on 15 October 1993.
4. From the hearing it appeared that the basic political and professional background was very much the same in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia, with television tightly controlled by the authorities and used by those in power to broadcast "nationalism and hate" in order to maintain a "war climate" over their respective populations. This is rather serious as television is the only media available for a great majority of the population.
5. According to a journalist from Sarajevo, recognition by the international community of the ultra-nationalist political leaders rather that of the democratic institutions, is reinforcing the power of government-controlled media. Participants at the hearing also voiced a certain disillusion and distrust in the international community and in particular in European organisations. Many Europeans wanted to help but did not know how and very often their initiatives were ill perceived by local populations. However, journalists from the former Yugoslavia present at the hearing realised that the situation, which was difficult enough for them to understand, would be almost impossible for most western Europeans.
Situation country by country
6. This section is based on reports by Mr Mazowiecki, special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, to a meeting convened by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, March 1993) and to the CDMM seminar on "The media in situations of conflict and tension" (Strasbourg, 29 November-1 December 1993); a report by Reporters sans frontières (October 1993); the hearing on the situation of the media in the former Yugoslavia (Strasbourg, 15 October 1993); a report on "Freedom of the Media in Eastern Europe and in the Countries of the Former Soviet Union" by the Trans-Atlantic Dialogue on European Broadcasting (Second Edition, November 1993); the "Directory of Indigenous Non-governmental Organisations and Independent Media in the Former Yugoslavia" established by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting; "The struggle for independent media in ex-Yugoslavia", prepared by the Ljubljana Co-ordinating Centre; and other material from the former Yugoslavia.
Slovenia
7. The public broadcasting body, "Radiotelevizia Slovenija" is managed by a Board of directors appointed by the Parliament. There is a national television station, supported by taxes and advertisements, a small private television station, "Kanal A Ljubljana", three national radio programmes of "Radio Slovenija" and twenty-two local radio stations. There are six national daily newspapers with a circulation of around 250 000 (Slovenia has a population of 1,9 million) and some forty-five magazines. There is an Italian television channel, a Hungarian radio programme and Italian, Bosnian, Hungarian and Albanian newspapers or newsletters. No major problems have been reported in the field of the media in Slovenia, in particular when compared with other countries in the region. Ljubljana was chosen for the seat of the Co-ordinating Centre for Independent Media (see below).
Croatia
8. After two years of war the picture of Croatian media is very clear: there is not a single important newspaper, television or radio that does not belong to the state or to the ruling party (HDZ) or is closely controlled by them. The process started with the "privatisation" of the two major daily newspapers, most of the shares in which are now owned by the state or leading HDZ figures. The last to fall has been "Slobodna Dalmacija" in October 1992. A systematic cleansing of all journalists that do not support HDZ policies has ensued.
9. The law on private radio and television is still to be adopted but independent journalists fear very much that it might confirm state control. There are five local television stations with varying degrees of independence (in Zagreb, Split, Osijek, Cacovek and Opuzen) and some small independent local radios but their influence cannot be compared to that of the state-controlled radio and television. The project "Radio Rijeka-Fiume International", now "Radio Lungomare", launched with the support of the Council of Europe in February 1992, is still waiting for a reply to its request for a broadcasting licence; yet, a radio project of the ruling party has received its licence in a short period of time. The national news agency, HINA, is closely controlled by the government party HDZ and there is a virtual state monopoly in the printing and distribution of the press. There are five daily newspapers of which only one, "Novi-list", is independent. However it has influence mainly in the region of Istria. Some other independent projects have started to appear in the last months, including the fortnightly "Feral Tribune".
10. The Croatian Government uses the media for propaganda. The war cannot be put to an end unless television, radio and newspapers stop "producing hate". According to the Chairman of the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, "the state television creates an atmosphere of justified arrogance. The state-controlled media have adopted a collective madness of hate speech and the population lives in a permanent state of fear".
The newspaper "Hrvatska Vjesnik", for instance is said to glorify the war and to carry the most bestial, racist, anti-Serb and anti-muslim propaganda. Nothing is done to stop this, whereas the pacifist newspaper "Arkzin" is considered to be anti-Croatian.
11. Physical and psychological aggression are used to intimidate all opposition to the regime and those not 100% in favour are considered against. Two journalists were arrested in October 1993 in connection with a bomb explosion in Split and another journalist was detained for not turning up in court. The twenty-person Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights is under constant attacks.
12. An additional problem is the price of newspapers, as one daily newspaper costs as much as a loaf of bread. The number of copies issued of every newspaper is steadily going down (only one household out of ten buys a daily newspaper) and the influence of state television is growing as a result.
Bosnia-Herzegovina
13. The situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina is similar to that in Croatia, with the state-controlled media producing enormous amounts of hate and hysteria. The situation has not changed in the last eighteen months. It should not be forgotten that the war started with the occupation of nine out of the eleven television transmitters and propaganda is essential to the continuation of hostilities. There are now three television channels in Bosnia-Herzegovina, all controlled by the military: (Sarajevo TV broadcasting for Moslems, TV Banja Luka for Serbs and TV Medjugorge for Croats) and independent television stations in Bugojno, Tuzla, Zenica and Konjic.
14. After 500 days of combat in Sarajevo, after the loss of five journalists killed and thirty wounded, the newspaper "Oslobodenje" is in serious difficulty. In mid-October its main problem was how to get fuel for the electricity generator. Fuel is available on the black market but unaffordable and the Bosnian Government is not prepared to help as Oslobodenje is an independent paper. The European Community (now European Union) claims to have given 3,8 million ecu to independent media in the former Yugoslavia, including Oslobodenje, but not all of the money has reached them and no explanation been given. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the International Federation of Newspaper Publishers (FIEJ), have supported the independent media and have co-ordinated material support. The UNHCR has difficulties handling this through its own channels. The only means of communication with the outside world is through radio amateurs. In western Europe, the best known media of Bosnia-Herzegovina is the newspaper "Oslobodenje" but the IFJ has pointed out that this is not the only newspaper in Sarajevo, it is not the most important and many people consider it less than independent. According to the Ljubljana Co-ordinating Centre the main independent media in Bosnia-Herzegovina are the daily "Vecenje novine" (Sarajevo), the newspaper "Oslobodenje" (Sarajevo), "B-H Dani" (Sarajevo), "Blic" and "Slobodna Bosna" (Zenica) and the radios "Studio 99" and "Radio Zid" (both from Sarajevo).
15. Radio or television programmes from abroad can be received in Sarajevo but the problem is the supply of electricity to run a radio or television. In addition only intellectuals understand foreign languages. Broadcasting in Serbo-Croat by the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Voice of America and Radio France International can be received almost everywhere in the former Yugoslavia. However this was not the case until recently and, unlike many other peoples of the former communist world, people from the former Yugoslavia had not the habit of listening to broadcasts from outside.
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
16. The basic political and professional background in the country now called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (namely Serbia — including Voivodine and Kosovo — and Montenegro) is the same as in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Croatia, but working conditions for the media are perhaps even worse due to the United Nations embargo. The importance of the role of the media in preparing wars is well known and everywhere in the former Yugoslavia the media have been active in doing so by playing the nationalistic card. The first thing Mr Milosevič did in Serbia was to take control of all the important media, especially the electronic media. "Radiotelevizija Srbije" is fully state-owned and its editorial policy is dictated by the government. The daily circulation of all the newspapers in the "New Yugoslavia" is 300 000, whereas before the war several newspapers had each a wider circulation. The main difference between Croatia and Serbia is the fact that in Serbia there are really independent media, such as Vreme, Borba, Radio B92 or Studio B. However, these are concentrated in Belgrade and have a very limited influence. This explains why they are tolerated by the regime, which can thus claim to be allowing a free press.
17. According to a journalist from Belgrade the working conditions are catastrophic. In mid-October Vreme had only enough paper for another four issues; afterwards it would be forced to stop. The newspaper had been living on donations, sponsorship (but advertising revenue was minimal) and solidarity and still had some spare money, but there was no paper to buy. The only practical consequence of the announcement by the European Union of financial help to Vreme (all of which has not been received) was the accusation by the regime that Vreme was a foreign agent and therefore an enemy.
18. Some recent events lead journalists to fear that the situation of independent media in Serbia will worsen in the near future. The government has been increasing its propaganda against traitors and 5th columnists; more than 1 000 radio and television employees have been placed on forced leave; an amendment is being examined in parliament that would prevent the media from receiving help. The harassment and intimidation of journalists is increasing: Mr Ousan Reljić, a journalist from Vreme was kidnapped and interrogated for thirty-six hours by people who knew everything he had said, either publicly or privately, in the past four or five years; he was released through international pressure. The secret services are also following other journalists' activities. This situation led to the creation a journalists' solidarity fund, which has already organised several actions and took part in a campaign to supply food to journalists in Sarajevo with the International Federation of journalists.
19. Kosovo, which was an autonomous province in the Yugoslav Federation, is now occupied and almost entirely colonised by Serbia. In 1989, when Yugoslavia started falling apart, the Parliament of Kosovo was suppressed, the Albanian television in Priština was shut down and so was the daily newspaper Rilindja. Although the population of Kosovo (2,3 million inhabitants) is 90% Albanian (the others being Serbs, Turks, Montenegrins, Gypsies, etc.), there is not a single Albanian media outlet. Albanians have a different language, different traditions and a different culture, but they say that they want to live in peace with Serbs. However Serbia controls everything in Kosovo and has managed to isolate it completely from the rest of the world. For the last one-and-a-half years the newspaper Rilindja has been printed in Switzerland, addressing itself to the 1,5 million Albanians living abroad.
20. In Montenegro there is clear evidence of state control. Seventy journalists have lost their jobs, mainly from state controlled media. A total media blackout of journalists of their case was operated in radio, television and press. The President of the Association of Journalists and another journalist have been sentenced to jail for offending the personality and functions of the President of Montenegro. Two Croat journalists and a journalist married to a Croat have been sacked. There is an upsurge of hate-speech in the media. The rules on defamation are such that any critical comment could be stifled by the authorities. Some independent media survive such as the weekly "Monitor", Radio Letinje and Radio Antenna M.
21. In Vojvodina, all media are controlled. There are no genuinly independent media, despite various attempts. International sanctions do not seem to have an impact on the authorities. A major problem is the intermediaries acting as dealers of humanitarian aid, who redistribute it according to their own criteria.
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
22. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is not among those responsible for the disintegration of Yugoslavia. As nationalists did not win the elections, or as a result the battle for the media, the situation is not comparable to that of other republics. There is a large range of opinions in the printed press, more than 100 private radio stations and some fifteen small local independent television stations, of which only A1 is on the same quality level as the state television. Some of the newspaper and television and radio programmes are in Albanian, Turkish and other minority languages.
23. Unlike the other republics, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia became independent without a single shot being fired. Its elections have been free and fair and the government now includes five Albanian ministers. The constitution guarantees the freedom of the press. Inter-ethnic tensions are openly dealt with. A privatisation agency was set up in October 1993 but its programme does not include the media. The market is small and economic conditions are rather difficult. The problem is to find a way in which the state would support the media without interfering with them.
24. According to the General Manager of the Macedonian Information Centre, the overall situation in the media field is quite relaxed and evolving, if slowly, in the right direction. The media need outside support, but of a different nature from that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia. One of the main concerns of the profession is organisation: how to organise independent trade unions for journalists, how to organise independent media and how to organise a working relationship with the various institutions in place. Opposition papers carry discussion in the letters' pages. The tradition of tolerance in a multi-ethnic society and the existence of a critical, independent press, open to different currents of opinion, is enough to prevent the escalation of ethnic tensions.
25. Other sources however report government pressure particularly in broadcasting. The main problem would appear to be economic, insofar as "Nova Makedonija" has a monopoly over printing, and to print elsewhere is costly. There are some fears that privatisation could lead to "sell-offs" of shares to "friends" of the government.
Action by professional and other non-governmental organisations
26. For the first time ever the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the International Federation of Newspaper Publishers (FIEJ) have joined efforts to face the dramatic situation of the media in the former Yugoslavia. They organised a round table on "nationalism: a crisis for independent journalism?", co-sponsored by the Unesco and the Council of Europe (Ljubljana, February 1993). A resolution was then adopted, establishing a co-ordinating centre for independent media, open to independent journalists, publishers and broadcasters in the countries of the Balkan region, including the territories of the former Yugoslavia. The Co-ordinating Centre was set up in Ljubljana with financial assistance from Unesco, the Council of Europe; the Slovene Society of Journalists and the Open Society Fund — Slovenia and began operating in April.
27. In March the IFJ and the FIEJ sent a joint mission to Croatia to examine the situation of independent media, following which they made recommendations to the Government of Croatia and to the Council of Europe.
28. On 18 and 19 November 1993 a second round table was organised in Ljubljana by the IFJ and the FIEJ and funded by the Council of Europe on "independent media: a key to peace". The meeting found that "the situation had deteriorated since February. Thirty-nine journalists had been killed since the beginning of the conflict and at least another twenty were missing. Independent media and journalists which continued to survive and tried to report objectively were the victims of violence, harassment and economic and political asphyxiation". The meeting called, inter alia, for higher priority to be given to media initiatives, for the Ljubljana Co-ordinating Centre to be strengthened, for an examination of the effects of United Nations sanctions on independent media and for the facilitation of the movement of journalists.
29. Reporters sans frontières is a French-based non-governmental organisation concerned with the defence of press freedom and imprisoned journalists. In the former Yugoslavia the organisation has been active in four complementary fields: investigation of the situation of the press and journalists' working conditions; protest against attacks to press freedom; international press campaigns and support to independent media. Concrete action in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia is decided according to the following criteria: the importance of the medium (professional quality, degree of independence and influence on public opinion); the urgency of the situation and feasibility (cost, technical problems and security conditions).
30. In February 1992 the Democratic Forum in Rijeka and the European Federation of Community Radios (FERL) organised a European colloquy on the freedom of the media in Rijeka-Fiume (Croatia). The Parliamentary Assembly was represented by Mrs Grendelmeier, Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Media. The colloquy concluded that although "European interventions would not provide the solution to the Yugoslav crisis they were, however, indispensable for creating the necessary conditions in which solutions could be developed by the local populations themselves". The project "Radio Lungomare" mentioned in paragraph 9 was launched at this colloquy.
31. In October 1992, during another colloquy organised by the FERL, thirty journalists from different republics of the former Yugoslavia, who refused the nationalist propaganda of the official media, decided to establish an independent information network, Alternativna Informacija Mreža (AIM). The network functions on a computer-base mailbox system covering the whole of the former Yugoslavia. Its aims are: to exchange articles and information between the republics of former Yugoslavia, to prepare the ground for the creation of independent media and to provide an information service for media, institutions and NGOs outside the former Yugoslavia. Since January 1993, the AIM network has been producing "Bura", a monthly, hour-long radio programme in Serbo-Croat, broadcast by independent radios within the former Yugoslavia and also for emigrant and refugee communities in Europe. It is made up of news, comments, interviews and specific dossiers. The Committee on Culture and Education exchanged views with a delegation of AIM journalists on 28 September 1993.
32. "Open Society Funds" (Soros Foundations) have been set up in all the countries of the former Yugoslavia, as well as in other central and eastern European countries and in the countries of the former Soviet Union. They have been active in supporting independent media through donations of paper and equipment and the provision of technical assistance. In Croatia the Open Society Fund is trying to help the setting up of two independent radio station, whereas in Belgrade it helped setting-up the Anti-War Media Centre.
Action by international organisations
33. Unesco supported the establishment of the Co-ordinating Centre for Independent Media in Ljubljana from the outset by providing the co-ordinator's salary for one year. It has also launched traiing programmes for independent journalists and runs a special fund for assistance to independent media in the former Yugoslavia.
34. An ad hoc delegation of the European Parliament travelled to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in May 1993. It confirmed the strong feeling of abandonment in Sarajevo and proposed some concrete measures of support to the newspaper Oslobodenje.
35. The European Community humanitarian fund has given between 5 and 6 million ecu to the French organisation Droit de parole for running the Radio Boat "Broda" and for the support of four independent newspapers: Oslobodenje (Bosnia-Herzegovina), Monitor (Montenegro), Vreme and Borba (Serbia) and radio B92 (Serbia). The newspapers involved state however that they have not received all of the intended funds. No explanation has yet been given by the Commission. The European Community human rights budget, though only in principle able to supply small amounts, exceptionally granted 100 000 ecu to the AIM network.
36. The European Union has no specific budget line for supporting democratic forces and independent media in the former Yugoslavia except in Slovenia, which is eligible for PHARE-DEMOCRACY programme support. Several approaches have been made to the Commissioner responsible both from within the Commission and from the European Parliament but he has persistently vetoed any extension to the rest of the former Yugoslavia. One reason given is that the European Parliament vetoed Croatia's receiving funds from the PHARE programme; another is the existing embargo against Serbia. As a result, the applications for funding made by several promising media projects are lying on the Commission's table without any chance of success. This could lead to valid projects being abandoned.
37. In March 1993 the Secretary General of the Council of Europe convened an informal meeting on the co-ordination of actions concerning the media in the former Yugoslavia. This meeting was attended by Mr Mazowiecki, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights, and representatives of international and non-governmental organisations active in the field. Based on the conclusions of this meeting the Secretary General proposed a double package of Council of Europe measures, which was accepted by the Committee of Ministers. This package included support for the Co-ordination Centre in Ljubljana and initiatives in the area of training of media professionals and is being developed in co-operation with the IFJ, the FIEJ and the FERL.
38. Following the joint mission of IFJ and FIEJ to Croatia and at the request of the Croatian Government, a mission of experts was organised by the Council of Europe in May 1993 to consider the legislative, regulatory and administrative framework for the media in Croatia. The team of experts formulated a number of critical remarks about that framework and made recommendations to the Croatian authorities. This was followed by a second Council of Europe mission in October 1993 to provide further assistance in the drafting of legislation on telecommunications and post, notably the provisions dealing with private radio and television broadcasting. An extensive report on the mission's work is available.
39. In September 1993 Mrs Leni Fischer, Chairperson of the Committee on Culture and Education, addressed a written question to the Committee of Ministers on the situation of the media in the former Yugoslavia in which she called for rapid and effective support to independent media. In its reply the Committee of Ministers agreed on the importance of supporting independent media with a view to contributing to the peace process in the former Yugoslavia. However, the package of measures was largely implemented through voluntary contributions by governments and depended therefore very much on the latter's generosity (see Appendix II).
Proposals for supplementary action
40. Participants at the hearing proposed that the Council of Europe develop co-ordination between both governmental and non-governmental organisations to support the independent media in the former Yugoslavia. If the resources of the Ljubljana Centre are extended it would become a natural focus for such co-ordination. One aim would be to identify which projects were really independent and should therefore be supported.
41. In addition to the above-mentioned package of measures to support the independent media in the former Yugoslavia the Council of Europe should use its "lobbying power" on its member countries (for instance to persuade them to give access to journalists from the former Yugoslavia), on countries that have applied to become full members (for instance to ensure that they adopt adequate legislation and that they actually respect the freedom and independence of the media), on the European Union (for instance to seek a wider support for the Ljubljana Centre) and on the United Nations (the transport of material to the independent media in the area).
Conclusions
42. The first conclusion to be drawn is the fact that the situation of media in the former Yugoslavia varies from one country to the other. Problems are much more acute in Serbia, Croatia and especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina than for instance in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or in Slovenia. However, while efforts should be concentrated on supporting the independent media in the first three countries, this should not mean that the others are forgotten.
43. It is clear that NGOs and intergovernmental organisations should play different roles. Whereas the former are more quickly able to help the independent media to survive by responding to their immediate material needs, the latter are in a better position to deal with long term problems more directly linked to the causes of the conflicts. This should not however prevent intergovernmental organisations from short-term action, in co-ordination with NGOs.
APPENDIX I
Record of the hearing on
the situation of media in the former Yugoslavia
(Strasbourg, 15 October 1993)
The hearing was chaired in the morning by Mr Berg, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Media, and in the afternoon by Mr Soell, Vice-Chairman. Further documentation, marked with an asterisk (*), is available from the Committee Secretariat.
***
In opening the hearing Mr Berg, welcomed members of the sub-committee, journalists, representatives of non governmental organisations and observers. The aim of the hearing was to give parliamentarians an accurate picture of the role of the media in the escalation of the conflicts in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, of the present situation and working conditions for journalists, and the different problems of each region. The question was what could possibly be done by the Council of Europe (on both parliamentary and intergovernmental sides) and by non-governmental organisations.
Mrs Dinsdale, Head of Division in the Human Rights Directorate, briefly presented the package of measures adopted by the Committee of Ministers to support independent media in the former Yugoslavia. As the protection of human rights and the rule of law was the essential aim of the Council of Europe, it could not stay indifferent to the situation in the former Yugoslavia. Since it was believed that the media could play an important role in any durable solution in the region, it had been decided to support independent media.
In March 1993 the Secretary General had convened a co-ordination meeting with Mr Mazowiecki, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and representatives of governmental and non-governmental organisations. The whole philosophy had been to generate synergies between the various bodies supporting independent media in the region. She mentioned, for example, that a joint mission of the IFJ and FIEJ to Croatia had been followed by a Council of Europe mission in response to requests from the Croatian authorities for an independent enquiry into the legislative, administrative and regulatory framework within which the media operated in Croatia. This would be followed up by an expert mission to assist in the drafting of new broadcasting legislation. [See further documentation (*)]
The Council of Europe media package involved: a. support to the Co-ordinating Centre for Independent Media in Ljubljana with the aim of making it more operational and b. training activities for independent media and journalists in the region. The package was financed mainly by voluntary contributions by member states. But over and above this kind os assistance, political support for independent media in the former Yugoslavia was necessary.
Ms Humar, Co-ordinator at the Centre for Independent Media in Ljubljana, briefly presented the centre and its activities. These were mainly the co-ordination of assistance for independent media, assistance to journalists and monitoring human rights violations. [See progress report (*)]
Mr Woodyear, representing the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), added that the Ljubljana Centre was the result of co-operation between the IFJ and the International Federation of Newspaper Publishers (FIEJ). Given the enormity of the problem of media in the former Yugoslavia the IFJ and FIEJ had decided, for the first time ever, to join efforts as a mark of solidarity.
Mr Rahnema, representing the International Federation of Newspaper Publishers (FIEJ), confirmed the importance of co-operation with the IFJ on this project. On behalf of the FIEJ he extended an invitation to members of the Sub-Committee on Media to attend the round table "Independent Media: A Key to Peace", to be held in Ljubljana on 18 and 19 November 1993.
Ms Roller, journalist from Zagreb, gave an overview of the situation in Croatia. After three years of "privatisation" the picture of Croatian media was very clear: there was not a single important newspaper, television or radio that did not belong to the state or to the ruling party (HDZ) or was closely controlled by them. The process had started a year ago with the two major daily newspapers, most of the shares in which were owned by the state or leading HDZ figures. The last to fall had been "Slobodna Dalmacija". A systematic cleansing of all journalists that did not support HDZ policies had ensued. Despite assurances to the IFJ and FIEJ that editorial policy would not change, "Slobodna Dalmacija" had played an important role in anti-Muslim propaganda.
The law on television was still to be adopted but independent journalists feared very much that it would confirm state control. There were some independent local radios but their influence could not be compared to that of state radio and television. There was also an independent newspaper, "Novi-list", but it had some influence only in the region of Istria. Its journalists were avoiding to play the role of "Slobodna Dalmacija" as they were afraid that the same methods of "transformation" would then apply to them. [See paper (*)] Some other independent projects had however started to appear in the last six months.
Mr Čičak, Chairman of the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, informed the sub-committee on how the Croatian Government used the media for propaganda. The sub-committee was further informed that the Croatian Government was handling the privatisation of newspapers in such a way that it ensured the predominant part of the shares for the members of the HDZ party. He said that the war could not be put to an end unless television, radio and newspapers stopped producing hate, or rather creating an atmosphere of justified arrogance. The General Manager of Croatian Radio and Television HRTV, Mr Antun Vrdoljak, was the Vice-President of the ruling party HDZ and simultaneaously member of parliament (Sabor). Other editors-in-chief were also at the same time members of parliament, so that they could always claim parliamentary immunity. In addition, HTV was used as a vehicle to prosecute political adversaries and, even after law suits had been won, would not allow them to defend themselves publicly The state-controlled media had adopted the emphatic mode of speech of collective madness and the population lived in a permanent state of fear.
Physical and psychological agression were used to intimidate all opposition to the regime and those not 100% in favour were considered enemies. Ten thousand civilian houses, mostly Serbian, within the territory of the Croation state, had been blown up. The new premises of a newspaper in Split had also been professionally targetted with 100 kg of explosive; Rijeka TV had been closed down; one journalist had been sued for an article she had written in 1991; and others were being accused, or were taken away for interrogation by the police; ten people whose names had been mentioned in ST (free weekly) and in the magazine Globus (formally an independent paper) as collaborators of the Serbs, had since then disappeared; one journalist had been attacked in Globus as a correspondent of Politika (Belgrade) and after that his car had been blown up. However, despite this gloomy situation, some independent media managed to survive, such as the fortnightly "Feral Tribune". The members of the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights (about twenty people) were under constant attack. [He circulated statements made by the committee and criticisms by the Vice-President of the government, Mr Vladimir Seks.]
In the proposals for a new law for institutions of higher education (currently being adopted by the parliament) there was a provision that deans of faculties could within the following two years decide, on undefined and arbitrary criteria, on who of the teachers (university professors) should remain in their jobs.
An additional problem was the price of newspapers, especially because of the difficult economic situation. Thus a daily newspaper cost the price of a loaf of bread and monthly salaries were about 200 DM. The number of copies of each newspaper was steadily falling, and the influence of state television growing accordingly.
The project Radio Rijeka Fiume International, supported by the Council of Europe, had been waiting for years for a broadcasting licence; yet the ruling party radio and local television projects received their licences within a short period of time.
The Soros Foundation was trying to set up some local independent radio stations and some independent magazines.
Mr Lopez Henares called for a written report on the situation of media in Croatia. He asked on what grounds did the government not allow independent radios and, together with Mrs Fischer, called for further information about the dismissal of university professors.
Mr Čičak replied that as the ruling party was in control of the parliament and of the government, it could do as it pleased. Broadcasting licences had not been formally refused, there had simply been no response at all since the electronic media law was in the making. As for the university professors, they could be dismissed if the law was adopted. A copy of this law, when published, would be sent.
Mr Bell, representative of the European Federation of Community Radios (FERL), recalled that the journalist Drago Hedl, who had attended the meeting of the Committee on Culture and Education on 28 September, had been thrown out of his newspaper in Osijek at machine-gun-point.
Ms Roller pointed out that while only 6% of the Croatian population read newspapers, everyone watched television. The influence of the "hate speech" of television could not be counteracted by small local radio stations. People could not act normally when then had only access to television for information.
Mr Berg found the situation most distressing. With only a small percentage of the population with access to independent media, Croatia was unbalanced and the electorate unable to make informed choices.
Mr Dizdarević, editor of "Oslobodenje" Sarajevo, said that the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina was exactly the same as in Croatia, with the state-controlled media producing enormous amounts of hate and hysteria. The situation had not changed in the last eighteen months and with the men in power in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia peace was completely impossible. In supporting the ultra-nationalists Milosevič, Tudjman and Izetbegovič, rather that the democratic institutions, the international community was reinforcing the power of government-controlled media. Bosnia-Herzegovina would end up as a totalitarian Muslim state with exactly the same problems as Croatia and Serbia; the signs were already visible in Sarajevo.
After 500 days of combat, after the loss of five journalists killed and thirty wounded, "Oslobodenje" was going through its last days. Today its main problem was how to get 100 litres of fuel to make the electric generator work. Fuel was available in the black market at 30 DM per litre, which was unaffordable. Izetbegovič' Muslim government was not prepared to help as Oslobodenje was an independent paper. The European Community claimed to have given 3,8 million ecu to independent media in the former Yugoslavia, including Oslobodenje, but no money had ever reached them and no explanation had been given. The newspaper was getting paper thanks to the IFJ, the FIEJ, Reporters sans frontières and the solidarity of several foreign newspapers. The UNHCR objected to handling it through its own channels. Their only means of communication with the outside world was through radio amateurs.
The population of Sarajevo was resigned to its fate and had given up expecting any help from the international community or from international organisations. They felt abandoned and betrayed by everybody. International initiatives such as "Sarajevo Capital of Culture" were all very well, but more helpful would be to carry a can of water up to old people living on a 14th floor flat. Half-day safaris by well-protected personalities such as Mrs Mitterrand seeking political bonus points were completely useless for Bosnians and could only show how the international community was unaware of their real problems and how little it cared for their real situation. This lack of support for those who had defended democratic and European ideas was inevitably leading to the consolidation of a totalitarian Islamic state in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He could not understand who had made the decision not to support the former inter-cultural vision of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
It should not be forgotten that the war had started with the occupation of nine out of the eleven television transmitters. Propaganda was essential to the continuation of hostilities: for example the Serb radio, broadcasting from 10 km outside Sarajevo, had put out that the Mudjadhin of Sarajevo had fed Serb children to lions in the zoo.
Mr Ćićak pointed out that there were now three television channels in Bosnia-Herzegovina, all controlled by the military: Sarajevo TV broadcast for Moslems, TV Banja Luka for Serbs and TV Medjugorge for Croats. In Sarajevo there were also two independent radio stations which faced the same practical problems as Oslobodenje.
Mrs Fischer asked whether radio or television programmes from abroad could be received in Sarajevo.
Mr Dizdarević pointed out that one problem was the supply of electricity to run a radio or television. In addition only intellectuals understood foreign languages and nationalists would not want to listen. Journalists however did.
Mr Čičak added that broadcasting in Croatian by the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Voice of America and Radio France International could be received almost everywhere in Croatia and the former Yugoslavia. During the communist period people gained the habit of listening to broadcasts from outside. It would be good if Radio Free Europe would be able to begin transmitting from Munich next month. The real problem however was to establish free broadcasting within the countries and new states of the former Yugoslavia.
Ms Roller recalled that since April 1993 there had also been the "Boat Radio" project, broadcasting from a ship anchored in the Adriatic Sea which could be heard in some coastal areas. This was financed by France and the European Community. It was an expensive project: fuel was used to keep the boat stationary and there had been storm damage to equipment.
Mr Čićak added that the "Boat Radio" was a prestige project supported by Mrs Mitterrand.
Mr Bell drew attention to the serious problem of European Community funding. As the Phare-Democracy programme was only applicable to Slovenia, there was no budget line to support independent media in other regions of the former Yugoslavia. The European Community had allocated 5,6 million ecu to the French organisation Droit de parole. Half of this had been earmarked for the "Boat Radio" project and the other half should have gone to four independent newspapers (Vreme, Borba, Oslobodenje and Monitor) and to Radio B92, but apparently these had not received all of the intended money. An European Parliament amendment to the 1994 budget might restore a budget line, but this would be too late. The Council of Europe could perhaps put some pressure on the European Community to clarify the situation now.
Mr Štajner, editor of "Vreme" Belgrade, said that the basic political and professional background in the country he was now forced to call New Yugoslavia (namely Serbia and Montenegro) was very similar to that in Croatia, but working conditions for the media were perhaps even worse due to the embargo. [He circulated material (*)]. Whereas the average monthly salary in Croatia was the equivalent of 200 DM, it was only 20 DM in Serbia.
Mr Dizdarević pointed out that it was only 4 DM in Bosnia.
Mr Štajner continued. The importance of the role of the media in preparing wars was known since the Spanish-American war 100 years ago and everywhere in the former Yugoslavia most of the media had been active in doing so by playing the nationalistic card. The first thing Mr Milosevič had done in Serbia had been to take control of all the important media, especially the electronic media. The daily circulation of all the newspapers in the New Yugoslavia was 300 000, whereas before the war several newspapers had each a wider circulation. The main difference between Croatia and Serbia was the fact that in Serbia there were really independent media, such as Vreme, Borba, Radio B92 or Studio B. However, these had a very limited influence and this explained why they were tolerated by the régime, which could then claim to be allowing a free press.
Their working conditions were catastrophic. "Vreme" had only enough paper for another four issues; afterwards it would be forced to stop. The newspaper had been living on donations, sponsorship (but advertising revenue was minimal) and solidarity and still had some spare money, but there was no paper to buy. The only practical consequence of the announcement by the European Community of a financial help to Vreme (which was never received) was the accusation by the regime that Vreme was a foreign agent and therefore an enemy. Foreign help, moral, political and financial, was indeed needed, but it should not be always publicly announced.
Some recent events led him to fear that the situation of independent media in Serbia would worsen in the near future. The government had been increasing its propaganda against traitors and 5th columnists; more than 1 000 radio and television employees had been placed on forced leave; an amendment was being examined in parliament that would prevent the media from receiving help. The harassment and intimidation of journalists was increasing: recently Mr Ousan Reljić, a journalist from Vreme, had been kidnapped and interrogated for thirty-six hours by people who knew everything he had said, either publicly or privately, in the past four or five years; he had been released through international pressure. He knew that the secret services were also following his own activities. This situation had led him to create a Journalists' Solidarity Fund, which had organised several actions, among which a multimedia exhibition on "Journalists in gloomy times" with discussions on topics such as "media and the war" and "law regulation in the electronic media". He was grateful for the support of colleagues and the IFJ.
Mr Ordanoski, General Manager of the Macedonian Information Centre, gave an overview of the situation of the media in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Macedonia was not among those responsible for the disintegration of Yugoslavia. As nationalists had not won the elections, or as a result the battle for the media, the situation was not comparable to what had been said for the other republics. There was a large range of opinions in the printed press, more than 100 private radio stations and several local independent television stations, of which A1 was on the same level as the state television. Some of the newspaper and radio stations were in Albanian.
Unlike the other republics, Macedonia had become independent without a single shot being fired. Its elections had been free and fair and the government now included five Albanian ministers. The Albanian parties played an important role in parliament. The constitution guaranteed the freedom of the press. Macedonia was the only place where inter-ethnic tensions were openly dealt with and solutions were reached for the problems that arose. A privatisation agency had been set up the week before but its programme did not include the media. Macedonia represented a small market and economic conditions were rather difficult. The problem was to find a way in which the state could support the media without interfering with them.
The overall situation in the media field was quite relaxed and evolving, if slowly, in the right direction. The media needed outside support, but of a different nature from that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia. One of the main concerns of the profession was organisation: how to organise independent trade unions for journalists, how to organise independent media and how to organise a working relationship with the various institutions in place.
Mr Lopez Henares was pleased to hear of the optimistic situation of the media in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. He asked for more information on how nationalist tension was handled and on the financing of private media, in particular A1 independent television.
Mr Ordanoski said that opposition papers carried discussion in the letters' pages. The independent television A1 was owned by a private transport manager who had made the initial investment. The tradition of tolerance in an multi-ethnic society and the existence of a critical, independent press, open to different currents of opinion, was enough to prevent ethnic tensions to escalate. Nationalism would never have a chance in Macedonia unless stirred up by its neighbouring countries.
Mrs Fischer asked why the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was not present at the Council of Europe summit in Vienna. She would like to know how the result of the recent elections in Greece was judged in Macedonia and how it would influence the relations between the two countries.
Mr Ordanoski believed that if Macedonia had not been present at the Vienna Summit, it was because it had not been invited. He did not know the reasons for this. Although in the past Macedonia had experienced better relations with the right wing New Democracy than with the Greek socialists (and in particular with Mr Papandreou), he was optimistic about the future. Greece shared with Serbia the philosophy of "one nation equals, one state", but had handled its relations with its neighbours in a surprising way. Two years before Greece had been in a wonderful position to become the "champion of the Balkans", but it had spoiled everything by siding with Serbia and pushing Macedonia, which had once looked on Greece as its window to the west, towards Bulgaria and Turkey. As anti-European feeling grew in Macedonia, the United States were moving in. The Greeks seemed to be conscious that they were loosing importance in the Balkans, but had done nothing yet to change their way of thinking. The claim that Macedonia was a threat to Greece was simply ridiculous: the Macedonian army was composed of 12 000 unarmed people, no airplanes and three tanks that could only serve as bunkers or museum exhibits. The best thing Macedonia could hope for was a friendly Greece.
Mr Soell, as Rapporteur for the accession of Greece to the Western European Union, found this analysis very interesting.
Mr Kelmendi, Chief Editor of Rilindja, presented the situation of the media in Kosovo. He felt that there was no democracy in the Balkans. Kosovo was occupied and almost entirely colonised by Serbia. Already in 1982 Serbia had started to arrest and to put in prison the students fighting for the independence of Kosovo within the Yugoslav Federation. In 1989, when Yugoslavia started falling apart, the Parliament of Kosovo was suppressed, the Albanian television in Priština was shut down and so was the daily newspaper Rilindja. Although the population of Kosovo (2,3 million inhabitants) was 90% Albanian (the others being Serbs, Turks, Montenegrins, Gypsies, etc.), there was not a single Albanian media outlet. Albanians had a different language, different traditions and a different culture, but they wanted to live in peace with Serbs. However the Serbs hated them. Serbia controlled everything in Kosovo and had managed to isolated it completely from the rest of the world. For the last one-and-a-half years the newspaper Rilindja had been printed in Switzerland, addressing itself to the 1,5 million Albanians expelled from Kosovo by the Serbs.
Mr Lopez Henares asked whether the aim of the Albanians in Kosovo was for autonomy within Serbia (or the New Yugoslavia), for union with Albania or for independence.
Mr Kelmendi replied that there were Albanians in Albania, in Kosovo, in Montenegro, in Macedonia and some in the south of Serbia. They certainly did not want to live with a state that had exploited them for the last 80 years. They wished to be independent but did not want to join Albania either.
Mr Čičak observed that 35% of the population of Serbia were not Serbs, but Albanians, Moslems, Hungarians and Croats. If either Serbia (or Croatia) were to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina, the resulting states would have less than 50% Serbs (or Croats). The policy of a Greater Serbia (or Greater Croatia) would inexorably lead to further ethnic cleansing. It was essential that Europe declared its position: was it prepared to stand up for the principle of the multi-ethnic society and multi-ethnic states? Persons and groups which promoted social society and a multicultural way of thinking and doing, needed every support from the west. Political parties were too much concerned with their own practical interests and tied to the old ways of thinking. However he realised that the situation, which was difficult enough for him to understand as one who had spent all of his life among the people in the former Yugoslavia, would be almost impossible to be understood by most of the participants in the hearing. Nevertheless what was going on in these countries was worse than barbarism.
Mr Ordanoski felt that this was a good reason to help and support Macedonia.
Mr Soell asked about the situation in Sanjak.
Mr Kelmendi felt that the international community had always made erroneous comparisons between Kosovo, Voïvodine and Sanjak. The population of Sanjak was also Muslim, but it was a region that had never had its own frontiers or any sort of autonomy. How could it be justified that 3 million Albanians had no rights at all and the Montenegrins, who were only 400 000 were recognised as a nation and enjoyed full rights?
Mr Štajner believed that one could not expect human rights and minority rights to be respected in a totally undemocratic state such as Serbia. If it had a democratic regime, life would be much better also for its Albanian population.
For Mr Čičak the situation in Sandjak, a region sandwiched between Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, had changed also as a result of Muslim refugees. A factor in relations between Kosovo and Albania was the half million Albanians living outside the Balkan region, in particular in the United States and western Europe, where they were very influential lobbies.
Mr Ordanoski did not agree with Mr Kelmendi that the issue was a matter of numbers or percentages. Everyone should enjoy human rights and an open-border policy should be pursued in the Balkans. The problem with some Albanians in Macedonia was that they did not accept minority status.
Mr Soell thanked participants for the presentations they had made of the situation of the media in their respective countries. The question now was what could the international community, and in particular the Council of Europe, do to help. The aim was to identify basic needs and concrete action.
Ms Roller said that independent journalists desperately needed support and help. There were no independent newspaper projects in Croatia and few in Serbia. The state controlled printing and distribution, and advertising money was not forthcoming until the two or three first issues were published. Without support, however, it was almost impossible to publish even the first issue and it was necessary to break this vicious circle. She appealed for support for all independent projects, with a security mechanism to determine those that were really independent. The few independent media that existed in Croatia had severe economic difficulties and spent their money in paper, ink or other basic material with very little left to pay journalists' wages. If the development of civil society depended on independent media, independent journalists also needed training. She welcomed the setting up of the Alternative Information Network (AIM) in the former Yugoslavia.
Mr Čičak compared the situation in Croatia, where there were five daily newspapers (of which only one from Rijeka, "Rijecki Novi list", was independent), to that of Norway, which had about the same population and where there were 120 daily newspapers. Free and independent media could not exist without democracy and therefore the most important thing for the Council of Europe to do was to put pressure on the non-democratic governments in the former Yugoslavia by insisting on privatisation and free independent media as a pre-condition for integration in European co-operation. A second priority would be education and training for young journalists. Third was to support practical projects in the new states of the former Yugoslavia. The "Boat Radio" project of Droit de Parole did not concern itself with any of the real problems within the countries, and was using up huge mounts of money that could be much better invested elsewhere.
He paid tribute to the Soros Foundation, that had done and was doing much to support independent initiatives in print and radio in central and eastern Europe — indeed more that all western countries together. The Council of Europe should declare their aknowledgement to Mr Soros and his Foundation.
Mr Woodyear, for the IFJ, referred to other problems faced by journalists in the former Yugoslavia: difficulties in movement and communications, lack of security, vulnerability to exploitation for propaganda, non-ethical approach by the state media and lack of fuel, paper, ink and, in some cases, even food. While non-governmental organisations were active in helping the independent media to survive by solving short-term problems (for example providing food for the journalists of "Oslobodenje"), they were not competent to deal with their long-term problems (for example removing the embargo against media supplies): this was a matter for the Council of Europe. Action should be directed to helping the media become more independent.
Mr Rahnema, for FIEJ, felt that the Co-ordinating Centre for the Independent Media in Ljubljana had the potential to become a focal point for collecting information and for the support of initiatives. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should press the European Union for wider support for the Ljubljana Centre.
Mr Bell suggested that the Council of Europe, in parallel with the European Parliament, officially approach the responsible European Community Commissioner with a view to the allocation of financial support to the independent media in the former Yugoslavia. A committee to advise which projects should be supported, could be set up by the Council of Europe in co-operation with the IFJ, the FIEJ and the FERL in order to ensure a more efficient and accountable use of European Community funds. He also seconded the proposal for exempting material needed by the media from the present sanctions.
Mr Dizdarević agreed with the proposals made so far. He too asked the Council of Europe to put pressure on the United Nations to have their mandate changed in order to allow for humanitarian reasons the transport of paper and other material for the independent media in Sarajevo. This was at present impossible as only food or medicine could be carried by the United Nations Agencies in the area.
Mr Ordanoski observed that transit through Macedonia would be easier. In addition he asked participants not to forget that Macedonia was also part of the former Yugoslavia and that it should also be supported. Macedonian journalists were not allowed into Greece because their passports mentioned the Republic of Macedonia. The Council of Europe could perhaps try to persuade Greece into letting them go there. Macedonian journalists needed training and advice on the organisation and management of the media (how to make a local newspaper or radio), on the organisation of journalists' trade unions and on technical aspects such as computers, software, data processing, etc. He asked that young Macedonian journalists be invited on traineeships in western Europe.
Mr Štajner said that help to the independent media in the former Yugoslavia should be moral, political and financial. But this help should be aimed at the republics of the former Yugoslavia and not at home politics. The west should help because it was in the long-term interests of the west for the conflict to be contained. International sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro did not apply in principle to independent media, but nevertheless they had to wait months for authorisation to import paper or even medicine. The Council of Europe could persuade governments and the European Union to press for an acceleration of United Nations paperwork.
However help should be timely. The United Nations Sanctions Committee had decided to lift sanctions on the independent television only ten days before the elections in December 1992. This had been completely counter-productive, as at least two months would have been necessary for them to get ready in time for playing an effective role in the electoral campaign. As it was, the government could claim at the time of the elections to be permitting free media. Similarly, it would be no use if "Vreme" received paper in three months time, as by then it would have gone out of circulation.
The Council of Europe was an institution that could be very effective in "putting pressure", although he did not particularly like the expression. But could not the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) be encouraged to withdraw the frequency accorded to Belgrade Television?
Mrs Dinsdale said that the Council of Europe had been trying to encourage the EBU to take a more active line but had not yet succeeded. The EBU had taken the position that each broadcaster of the former Yugoslavia would be considered to be a former member of EBU. EBU did not wish to get involved in questions of programme content, since it saw its function as one of servicing its members.
Mr Čičak felt that more co-ordination was needed between governmental and non-governmental organisations. The Council of Europe could give assistance in drafting media laws and then make sure that such laws were adopted and effectively applied. It should not accept the sort of support given to Mr Milosević by MM. Vance, Owen or Stoltenberg.
Ms Humar referred to the systematic violation of freedom of expression in many regions of the former Yugoslavia and stressed the difficulty of getting information about journalists who had been imprisoned, died or disappeared. The Council of Europe could indeed help by governments pressure on the military authorities.
Mr Ordanoski pressed for setting up a co-ordination body in which all the organisations interested in supporting the independent media in the former Yugoslavia would be represented.
Mr Soell made some provisional concluding remarks. The hearing had not aimed to arrive at formal conclusions, but these would be embodied in the committee's report on the overall cultural situation in the former Yugoslavia.
The needs of the independent media in the region had been identified and several interesting suggestions had been made on ways in which the Council of Europe could support them:
— use its lobbying power on each country and on the European Community;—
— seek closer co-operation with the Soros Foundations;—
— press for exemption of the United Nations embargo for the independent media;—
— set up and support training schemes for young journalists;—
— persuade member countries to let in journalists from the independent media;—
— press for a change in the United Nations mandate in Bosnia to allow for transport of material to the independent media in Sarajevo;—
— set up a co-ordinating body with both governmental and non-governmental organisations to support the independent media in the former Yugoslavia;—
— take into consideration the particular situation of Kosovo.He
He thanked all participants and expressed the hope that he and his colleagues would be able to contribute, both in the framework of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in their respective national parliaments.
List of participants
Members of the Sub-Committee on Media
Hallgrim Berg, Chairman, Norway
Hartmut Soell, Vice-Chairman, Germany
José Lopez Henares, Spain
Freddy Sarens, Belgium
Leni Fischer, Chairperson of the Committee on Culture and Education, Germany
Experts
Slovenia
Bojana Humar, Head of the Coordination Centre for Independent Media, Ljubljana
Croatia
Vesna Roller, journalist, Zagreb
Ivan-Zvonimir Čičak, Chairman of the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, Zagreb
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Zlatko Dizdarević, Oslobodenje, Sarajevo
Serbia
Hari Štajner, Editor of Vreme, Belgrade
Kosova
Binak Kelmendi, Chief Editor of Rilindja, Kosovo
Macedonia
Sašo Ordanoski, General Manager of the Macedonian Information Centre, Skopje
European Federation of Community Radios (FERL), AIM network of the former Yugoslav journalists
Nicholas Bell, Secretary General,
International Federation of Newspaper Publishers (FIEJ)
Ali Rahnema, Special Projects Officer
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
E. Lee Woodyear, Human Rights Officer
Observers
Andrej Novak, Ambassador, Permanent representative of Slovenia to the Council of Europe
Blagoj Zašov, Representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Vera Simić, journalist, formerly of Sarajevo TV
Yves Dubois, Director of FR3 Alsace
Francesc Ferrer, journalist, La Vanguardia, Spain
Dominique Jung, Strasbourg Correspondent of Reporters sans frontières
Robert Rheinheimer, journalist, United Press, France
Secretariat General of the Council of Europe
Jane Dinsdale, Head of Division, Directorate of Human Rights
Isil Gachet, Media section, Directorate of Human Rights
Gunilla Carlander, Political Directorate
Maria McDonagh, Division of relations with the Press
Committee secretariat
Joern Stegen, Head of Division, Office of the Clerk of the Assembly
Christopher Grayson, Secretary to the Committee on Culture and Education
João Ary, co-Secretary to the Committee on Culture and Education
Anne-Marie Nothis, Assistant
APPENDIX II
Written question by Mrs Fischer
on the situation of the media in the former Yugoslavia
and reply from the Committee of Ministers
I. Question (30 September 1993, Doc. 6947)
Mrs Fischer,
Considering that;
1. The media operating on the territory of the former Yugoslavia share responsibility for the origin and development of the conflicts raging there, and will also have a central role in any solution to those same conflicts. The chances of lasting peace in the region require the existence, among other things, of the free circulation of information and of independent media;
2. The Ministers' Deputies have already adopted a package of priority measures for independent media in the former Yugoslavia including in particular support for the Co-ordination Centre for Independent Media in Ljubljana as well as training activities for media professionals;
3. The news concerning the situation of the media in the former Yugoslavia is becoming increasingly alarming. The violation of the rights of journalists, infringements of the principle of independence of the media and the shortage of material has led to a situation that can be described as disastrous: disturbing information has come out of Kosovo concerning the repression of the media using the Albanian language; the question of the pluralism of the press remains a cause for concern in Croatia; problems have also been highlighted in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; and in Bosnia-Herzegovina a handful of journalists risk their lives in an attempt to continue to circulate information,
To ask the Committee of Ministers,
whether, confronted with this tragic situation, it is in a position to consider providing rapid and effective support to independent media in the former Yugoslavia, in particular:
i. by taking a very firm stance against violations of freedom of expression and infringements of the principle of the independence of journalists in the former Yugoslavia;
ii. by stepping up its co-operation and assistance activities in the field of the media concerning specifically the former Yugoslavia, to ensure that greater support is given to independent journalists in the former Yugoslavia;
iii. by developing, in addition to these activities and as a complement thereto, operational means to offer the most effective help to independent media in the former Yugoslavia, taking account of the various actions already undertaken on the spot, in particular by non-governmental international organisations active in this sector.
II. Reply from the Committee of Ministers (29 October 1993)
The Committee of Ministers is fully aware of the fundamental importance of the media where the situation in countries of the former Yugoslavia is concerned. It takes a very firm stance against violations of freedom of expression and infringements of the principle of the independence of journalists in countries of the former Yugoslavia, as well as against repression of media of national minorities.
This is why it has already committed itself to developing specific activities in this field. These activities themselves stem from the conclusions of an informal meeting on the co-ordination of activities relating to the media in countries of the former Yugoslavia, held in Strasbourg on 18 March 1993 at the invitation of the Secretary General.
A package of measures was thus adopted by the Committee of Ministers following the meeting, in order to offer support for the survival and existence of the independent media in countries of the former Yugoslavia. This package indeed has two components: Council of Europe support for the Co-ordinating Centre for Independent Media, in Ljubljana, and initiatives relating to training for media professionals. Some existing funds were allotted to these activities to enable them to go ahead speedily, but the package of measures as a whole is largely implemented through voluntary contributions by governments.
However, the support for independent media in countries of the former Yugoslavia is certainly an important element in the efforts of the Council of Europe to contribute to the peace process in this bruised part of Europe. In this context, the Committee of Ministers expresses its political and moral support to those who are engaged in the defence of this independence and in the distribution of objective and impartial information coming from a plurality of sources in a spirit favourable to the search for a lasting solution to the conflict.
The Committee of Ministers is aware of the importance of undertaking support efforts in co-operation with NGOs active on the ground. It recalls in this context the numerous actions of assistance and support as well as the declarations adopted by the International Federation of Journalists (FIJ), the International Federation of Newspaper Publishers (FIEJ), the European Federation of Community Radio (FERL), Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF), and the Declaration on public broadcasting adopted recently by the International Press Institute (IPI), on the occasion of the European Media Symposium held in Vienna from 22 to 24 September 1993.
Where operational resources to help the independent media on the ground are concerned, the Committee of Ministers will examine this question, in conjunction with the Secretary General.
2 2 Approved by the committee on 5 January 1994.
Secretaries to the committee: MM. Grayson and Ary.